All Map, No Road

  • News
  • Thread starter schwarzchildradius
  • Start date
  • #26
kat
26
0
Originally posted by jcsd
Well Jordan and Egypt claimed to be holding the West Bank and Gaza in trusteeship for the P{alestinians howevre the UN generally recognized territory won in 1948, though not explusion from the territories.
could you expand on this a bit? I'd like to be sure that I'm fully understanding your statement.

Originally posted by jcsd

Recognition, co-operation.

You stated that the initiative covered "all the concessions" that the Israeli's were looking for, do you really believe promises of recognition, and statements of co-operation covers a statement such as "all the concessions"? and Again, I ask you, what was the initiatives resolution to ROR?



Originally posted by jcsd

Is that anyway analogus? I do not think so. What happened is hundreds of thoudands of peole where forced off their ancestral lands so that foreign immigrants could live there and that an artifical Jewish majority could be maintained in those lands. Where not talking about the building of munmicpal works here. What's more analogous is German policy in the East during the second world war when slavs where thrown off their land so that ethnic Germans could settle there.
I think the loss of homeland is an apt comparision, unless you somehow equate a Palistinian Arabs loss as greater then that of Southern United states blacks and a handful of Irish-Cherokee descendants who had lived on the same miles upon miles of land for generations, my cherokee gr-grandmother on the land of her ancestors and all that being removed AGAIN would entail. IF you wish to make that irrelevent in the debate fine.....
I can put that aside,
BUT during the same decade as that which gave birth to the palestinian-arab refugees hundreds of thousands of Jews who survived the holocaust were put into refugee camps and finally resettled elsewhere, (some to Israel but many to other areas as well) they were not returned. The complete German speaking population of Czechoslavakia was expelled, and sent to Germany. They were not returned to Czechoslavakia. Millions of Hindus left what became Pakistan and were resettled in India, and millions of Muslims left India and were resettled in Pakistan/Bangladesh. People were also displaced by governemnt actions in China and Russia in that decade, and the overwhelming majority were resettled, not returned. Overall, of all the millions of human beings who lost their homes as a result of the conflicts in the 40s, as far as I can tell, only a very small minority were able to ever return to their original villages.


As for future dialogue it is IMO better to leave WW2 analogies on the side as there are lots of examples of war time occupations that have nothing to do with germans and nazis. By using other examples there is a greater chance of lowering the level of animosity in replies and keeping the conversation civil.
 
  • #27
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,090
11
The ROR was to be dealt with under resolution 242, but would of probably of been reliquinshed (the phrase was "a fair settlement").

So it's ok for the Israelis to say "you can't live here because your an Arab", in the exam[ple you mentioned you were talking about the displacements of minorities, not the displacement of the majority.

Yes Zero that's what I hate the slavish support of Israel even to go as far as supporting ethnic cleansing, particularly when only a patchy knowledge of the conflict is possesed.

Lebensraum is exactly analogous as it is the settlemnt and the displacemnt of the majority by the minority in order to rebuild some real or imagined homeland.
 
  • #28
kat
26
0
Originally posted by Zero
I hate to tell you, but most of the people on this thread are going to support any and every action by Israel, no matter what. Even the crimes of individual Israelis against Palestinians seem to be justified, somehow. If I were you, I would just give up, because they aren't interested in any facts(no even their own), that contradict the false notion that Israel is nearly always in the right.

The fact that Israel was established as a racists state never even occurs to them.
I'm quite sure that I can speak for all of the people on this forum when I thank you for your absolutely unbiased and thought provoking comments, Mr. mentor. It is an absolute gift to have someone guiding this thread, nay, this forum, with such thought provoking comments as put forth by yourself. I applaud you and all of your "factually" based comments and your obvious support of open and productive, civil discourse. I'm equally grateful for you uncanny ability to read all of our minds, unite us together in one collective unit and aptly identify all of our faults and weaknesses! Thank you, thank you!
 
  • #29
Zero
Originally posted by kat
I'm quite sure that I can speak for all of the people on this forum when I thank you for your absolutely unbiased and thought provoking comments, Mr. mentor. It is an absolute gift to have someone guiding this thread, nay, this forum, with such thought provoking comments as put forth by yourself. I applaud you and all of your "factually" based comments and your obvious support of open and productive, civil discourse. I'm equally grateful for you uncanny ability to read all of our minds, unite us together in one collective unit and aptly identify all of our faults and weaknesses! Thank you, thank you!
All part of the service, me pointing out your blind spots when it comes to Israel. You guys are so insightful otherwise.

Oh, and those shoes don't match your outfit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
kat
26
0
Originally posted by Zero
All part of the service, me pointing out your blind spots when it comes to Israel. You guys are so insightful otherwise.

Oh, and those shoes don't match your outfit.
There would likely be less blind spots if you were to find occasion to back your statements up with more facts and references and less vitriolic hyperbole. FZ does a great job of interacting in civil discourse, he even occasionally changes my opinion on this topic as well as a few others, maybe you should consult with him on occasion. At any rate, I believe it is often less about being "right" and more often about an exchange of ideas. Civil discourse vs. hyperbole has a greater chance of allowing for productive exchanges.

Oh, btw, you need to have your eyes checked sweetie, a T, barefeet and polished toes are a natural match.:wink:
 
  • #31
Zero
Originally posted by kat
There would likely be less blind spots if you were to find occasion to back your statements up with more facts and references and less vitriolic hyperbole. FZ does a great job of interacting in civil discourse, he even occasionally changes my opinion on this topic as well as a few others, maybe you should consult with him on occasion. At any rate, I believe it is often less about being "right" and more often about an exchange of ideas. Civil discourse vs. hyperbole has a greater chance of allowing for productive exchanges.

Oh, btw, you need to have your eyes checked sweetie, a T, barefeet and polished toes are a natural match.:wink:
Yeah, I was a little over the top. Continue.
 
  • #32
kat
26
0
Originally posted by jcsd
The ROR was to be dealt with under resolution 242, but would of probably of been reliquinshed (the phrase was "a fair settlement").
Well, my memory has "a fair settlement" being mentioned on the one side and mention of ROR on the other, but surely you don't equate this ambigious statement "fair settlement" as a resolution to ROR and "covering all the concessions" Israel was looking for?

and once more I will ask you,
"You stated that the initiative covered "all the concessions" that the Israeli's were looking for, do you really believe promises of recognition, and statements of co-operation covers a statement such as "all the concessions"?'

Originally posted by jcsd

So it's ok for the Israelis to say "you can't live here because your an Arab", in the exam[ple you mentioned you were talking about the displacements of minorities, not the displacement of the majority.
If you want to ask this in a less simplistic manner, recognizing the nuances of the various situations I might be inclined to answer it. Arab's do live in Israel, as active members of the government and with full voting rights, so your question is an intentional "set up" I'm not buying into.

Originally posted by jcsd

Lebensraum is exactly analogous as it is the settlemnt and the displacemnt of the majority by the minority in order to rebuild some real or imagined homeland.
Ah, I. C. I suppose you are correct, there are parrallels to be made, except that I think you may have it a bit backwards and I still think it is better to avoid Nazi germany comparisions as they are unnecesary, distortive and rely on an appeal to emotionism that is particularly obnoxious when speaking of israel IMO


Bah, I've run out of time. I will get back to you on this later.
 
  • #33
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,090
11
Originally posted by kat
Well, my memory has "a fair settlement" being mentioned on the one side and mention of ROR on the other, but surely you don't equate this ambigious statement "fair settlement" as a resolution to ROR and "covering all the concessions" Israel was looking for?

and once more I will ask you,
"You stated that the initiative covered "all the concessions" that the Israeli's were looking for, do you really believe promises of recognition, and statements of co-operation covers a statement such as "all the concessions"?'

If you want to ask this in a less simplistic manner, recognizing the nuances of the various situations I might be inclined to answer it. Arab's do live in Israel, as active members of the government and with full voting rights, so your question is an intentional "set up" I'm not buying into.



Ah, I. C. I suppose you are correct, there are parrallels to be made, except that I think you may have it a bit backwards and I still think it is better to avoid Nazi germany comparisions as they are unnecesary, distortive and rely on an appeal to emotionism that is particularly obnoxious when speaking of israel IMO


Bah, I've run out of time. I will get back to you on this later. [/B]
What other concessions do you expect them to make, conceding Israel's right to the pre-1967 land is a huge concession.

I am well aware of the Israeli constitutional situation in Israel (though Israeli citizen Arabs are subject to quite a lot of discrimanation and racism including laws targetted against them), I was referring to the fact israel has ruled over the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories for 35 years yet they have absolutely no rights.

The situation is analogous and is the only historical analogy I can tjink of, just because the perpetrators are Israeli doesn't make it right.
 
  • #34
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by jcsd
You say there never was such a country as Palestine (well actually there was, but it wasn't independant) but does that mean that someone can just come along and throw the Palestinians off their land because they don't have their own country or deny them basic human rights and attack their infrastructure
That is a lie. They were not thrown off their land, they did
have their own country for a very short while (on paper, at least)
they are not denied basic human rights and their infrastructure
is not attacked unless you mean their terrorist government
lead by Yaser Arafat, until now.
Originally posted by jcsd
I'm afraid the Saudi initiative was serious, though the Muslim countries did recognise that a Likud government was unlikely to accept it, even though it was pretty much exactly the same as a UN touted peace plan.
That is also a lie. Anyone with as considrable knowledge
as you appear to have should know that NEVER would a leading
Israeli political party and its government (whatever that
party is Likud/Labour) accept such an initiative. Which is
of course due the simple fact that Israel is a democratic
country and the majority of Israelis will NEVER support a
full retreat to the 1967 borders under current conditions.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #35
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
Originally posted by jcsd
(though Israeli citizen Arabs are subject to quite a lot of discrimanation and racism including laws targetted against them),
That is a lie. There are no discriminating laws, there are
laws that are there for security reasons. You could call some
of them discriminating but that is a clear mistake and
ignores the reasons for these laws. If you had citizens inside
your country who don't want it, you wouldn't let them serve
in the military force that defends it or allow them access to
secret military installations. Since security means people's lives
I'd regard this as a lot less racial than for example immigration
laws in western countries which exist for political and economical
reasons.
Originally posted by jcsd
I was referring to the fact israel has ruled over the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories for 35 years yet they have absolutely no rights.
They granted basic human rights. Some violations may exist
when it comes to legal and government situation, but then
again, it's not like there's an alternative until the Palestinians
are ready to co-exist with Israel and form a reasonable
government that will not nagotiate through murder.
Originally posted by jcsd
The situation is analogous and is the only historical analogy I can think of, just because the perpetrators are Israeli doesn't make it right.
Well your analogy sucks. Which is probably also an indication
of the one who made it. Purhaps there weren't enough suicide
bombers blowing up on the streets of your country recently.
Not to mention what countries like the US or UK would do
if that happened.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
Originally posted by jcsd
I really do advise people to look more at the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has consistently broken Un resolutions and has keeped what amounts to a third of the population it contols in a state of limbo with no legal rights.
The UN is a pethetic organization that clearly outlived it's
usefullness in the modern world. It is full of corruption
which is precisely the way it works. It is inconcievable that
Israel would even be able to pass a single resolution
condemning any arab state in even the littlest wrong doing
even if the arabs won and were butchering every last Israeli,
if it were not for US's support in the UN. The arab countries
are numerous and oil rules the world. No country cares about
countries a long distance away, each country just cares for
its own intrests. It is fortunate that the US has the power
to stand as the world's example of a country that does
care about principles in the world, it is its interst in many
other fields too, but that doesn't change this basic fact.
The UN is further rediculous because in the modern world
of the 21st century it gives full rights to non-democratic
countries, to murderers and insane dictators while the
only reasonable way to deal with such regimes is to send'em
to hell. There is no reason whatsoever to trust the actual
validity and connection to reality of any resolution or claim
issued by the UN's corrupt officials and their pathetic
descision making process.
 
  • #37
Zero
Originally posted by kat



Ah, I. C. I suppose you are correct, there are parrallels to be made, except that I think you may have it a bit backwards and I still think it is better to avoid Nazi germany comparisions as they are unnecesary, distortive and rely on an appeal to emotionism that is particularly obnoxious when speaking of israel IMO

There are certain parallels...and while it is emotionally charged, it is also a fair comparison, since what we are discussing is the formation of country based on race and religion, that came out of the acts of a government who acted because of race and religion. Israel exists because of an idea parallel(but opposite0 to the Nazi idea; that Jewish people are different from other people, and should be segragated from other people.
 
  • #38
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
Originally posted by Zero
that Jewish people are different from other people, and should be segragated from other people.
Precisely the way any other nation on the globe feels. Except
that most of them were always on their homeland, even if conquered, rather than dispersed across many other countries while their land
was siezed by their enemies. Many nations that did suffer this
fate do not exist anymore. Jewdaism as a unifying religion
prevented this from happening to the Jewish people for 2
millenia.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #39
Zero
Originally posted by drag
Precisely the way any other nation on the globe feels. Except
that most of them were always on their homeland, even if conquered, rather than dispersed across many other countries while their land
was siezed by their enemies. Many nations that did suffer this
fate do not exist anymore. Jewdaism as a unifying religion
prevented this from happening to the Jewish people for 2
millenia.

Live long and prosper.
To quote some of your political comrades...war is tough, the Israelis should get over it. especially since it happened over a thousand years ago.
 
  • #40
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
Originally posted by Zero
To quote some of your political comrades...war is tough, the Israelis should get over it. especially since it happened over a thousand years ago.
The Jews did get over it...:wink:
 
  • #41
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177
Originally posted by drag
The Jews did get over it...:wink:
Hey Drag, how would you feel about the US staying out of the Middle East? Would you support:
A full withdrawl of all troops
No more weapons sales to anyone
No more financial support or aid
[Assuming of course that through the up and coming Hydrogen industry we no longer need the oil]

I'm not fishing here; just curious.
 
  • #42
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,090
11
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

That is a lie. They were not thrown off their land, they did
have their own country for a very short while (on paper, at least)
they are not denied basic human rights and their infrastructure
is not attacked unless you mean their terrorist government
lead by Yaser Arafat, until now.


Yes there were several well reported clearances and massacres by Jewish defence and terrorist organisations and roughly 700,000 Arabs either fled or were expelled.

That is also a lie. Anyone with as considrable knowledge
as you appear to have should know that NEVER would a leading
Israeli political party and its government (whatever that
party is Likud/Labour) accept such an initiative. Which is
of course due the simple fact that Israel is a democratic
country and the majority of Israelis will NEVER support a
full retreat to the 1967 borders under current conditions.

Live long and prosper.
You do not understand Likud. Likud (or more correctly the two parties it was formed out of, one of themselevs an amalmation of two pre-1948 terrorist organisations) were a dying party until they started to support the settler movement, it is clear from their rhetoric especially of the right of the party that they do not wish to withdraw (infact an end to the conflict would certainly be a death-knell to figures like Netanyahu and Sharon who owe their postions to the shifting of Israeli politics to the right as a result of the conflict).
 
  • #43
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,090
11
Originally posted by drag
That is a lie. There are no discriminating laws, there are
laws that are there for security reasons. You could call some
of them discriminating but that is a clear mistake and
ignores the reasons for these laws. If you had citizens inside
your country who don't want it, you wouldn't let them serve
in the military force that defends it or allow them access to
secret military installations. Since security means people's lives
I'd regard this as a lot less racial than for example immigration
laws in western countries which exist for political and economical
reasons.

Recently groups such as HRW, have reported several laws that are specifically targetted against Israeli-Arabs, such as the reduction of child benefit to families who do not serve in the IDF (though the strict Orthodox Jews were also affected by this there exists a seperate fund that they can claim from not accesible to Arabs). Also at the moment there is a row over a law that will stop someone from claiming automatic citzenship if they have a Palestinian parent, even if they meet all the other criteria.

They granted basic human rights. Some violations may exist
when it comes to legal and government situation, but then
again, it's not like there's an alternative until the Palestinians
are ready to co-exist with Israel and form a reasonable
government that will not nagotiate through murder.
Until a couple of years ago it was perfectly legal for the Israeli security services to torture Palestinas in their custody, even with reforms torture is still not illegal. Palestinians have virtually no legal protection against there land being taken by Israelis and against attacks by settler militias.

Well your analogy sucks. Which is probably also an indication
of the one who made it. Purhaps there weren't enough suicide
bombers blowing up on the streets of your country recently.
Not to mention what countries like the US or UK would do
if that happened.
I remember 'the troubles', so I am perfectly aware of what it's like to live with the threat of terrorism. The analogy is not unfair but I will not labour the point.
 
  • #44
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,090
11
Originally posted by drag
The UN is a pethetic organization that clearly outlived it's
usefullness in the modern world. It is full of corruption
which is precisely the way it works. It is inconcievable that
Israel would even be able to pass a single resolution
condemning any arab state in even the littlest wrong doing
even if the arabs won and were butchering every last Israeli,
if it were not for US's support in the UN. The arab countries
are numerous and oil rules the world. No country cares about
countries a long distance away, each country just cares for
its own intrests. It is fortunate that the US has the power
to stand as the world's example of a country that does
care about principles in the world, it is its interst in many
other fields too, but that doesn't change this basic fact.
The UN is further rediculous because in the modern world
of the 21st century it gives full rights to non-democratic
countries, to murderers and insane dictators while the
only reasonable way to deal with such regimes is to send'em
to hell. There is no reason whatsoever to trust the actual
validity and connection to reality of any resolution or claim
issued by the UN's corrupt officials and their pathetic
descision making process.
Just because the UN does not agree with your point of view is no reason to rubbish it (particularly without pointing out a single unfair UNSC resolution), I couild point to other NGOs like AI and HRW.

I also remind you that no Arab countries have permanent seats on the UNSC and the spectre of an Arab oil cartel running the UN is just as absurd as the notion of ZOG.
 
  • #45
Zero
Originally posted by drag
The Jews did get over it...:wink:
If they did, there would be no Israel, and fewer problems in the Middle East. Of course, the world instead decided to create a state based on racism on Arab land.
 
  • #46
russ_watters
Mentor
19,869
6,293
Originally posted by kat
I'm quite sure that I can speak for all of the people on this forum when I thank you for your absolutely unbiased and thought provoking comments, Mr. mentor. It is an absolute gift to have someone guiding this thread, nay, this forum, with such thought provoking comments as put forth by yourself. I applaud you and all of your "factually" based comments and your obvious support of open and productive, civil discourse. I'm equally grateful for you uncanny ability to read all of our minds, unite us together in one collective unit and aptly identify all of our faults and weaknesses! Thank you, thank you!
Seconded. Sig.
 
  • #47
russ_watters
Mentor
19,869
6,293
Originally posted by Zero
If they did, there would be no Israel, and fewer problems in the Middle East. Of course, the world instead decided to create a state based on racism on Arab land.
Based on racism? Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East. And only one side of this conflict has ever (and depending who you ask may still) had the goal of extermination of the other side.

Israel's existence isn't based on racism. Opposition to Israel (in the Middle East) is based on racism.
 
  • #48
Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
Based on racism? Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East. And only one side of this conflict has ever (and depending who you ask may still) had the goal of extermination of the other side.

Israel's existence isn't based on racism. Opposition to Israel (in the Middle East) is based on racism.
A Jewish state isn't based on race?!?
 
  • #49
russ_watters
Mentor
19,869
6,293
Originally posted by Zero
A Jewish state isn't based on race?!?
Yes, I suppose a "Jewish state" would be based on race. Israel is not based on being Jewish so it is therefore not a "Jewish state".
 
  • #50
Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes, I suppose a "Jewish state" would be based on race. Israel is not based on being Jewish so it is therefore not a "Jewish state".
The Jewish homeland is not based on being Jewish?
 

Related Threads on All Map, No Road

Replies
9
Views
880
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
Top